Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...

I voted for "change," mostly more mods.

As for as mod actions, what I'd like to see is them intervening more often and earlier when a discussion gets nasty. An example of intervention would be a post such as "let's discuss the topic civilly and not insult/attact the members you disagree with". As post such as that before it escalates might avert a flame event.

You were terrific as a Mod.

I remember you did a great job,I thought it was a shame when you resigned.I guessed you probably had too much going on in your life to be able to spare enough time for moderating.

Eeeeevil I tell you! Me and Stacy gather round the cauldron each night with Brownie and stir up all the trouble. We really run this place. You are all just puppets in our grand plan



I think the moderators do a great job! In my opinion, they are under-appreciated. Could more mods help? I think so.

But... do too many cooks spoil the broth?

I don't think an extra one or two would hurt.

More mods is always nice. Most forums have mods dedicated to each subforum. Some spread themselves among 2 or so subforums and it works well when having around 3 mods on each of those subforums.

Just a question.

Mention has been made for moderators dedicated to specific forums. I think as you discuss such things you should be very clear on what you mean.

Do you mean one moderator responsible for just merges, deletions, and closures?

Or would you mean that that moderator would have sole decision in handling any issues that arose in said forum? (I don't think that wise.)

Good questions

I think being responsible for certain tasks (setting the bannings, giving out the warnings, deleting/closing/merging threads and so on) could be assigned to particular mods, but giving each mod sole responsibility for any given sub-forum is a moronic idea. The only way a mod team can work, it by acting collectively, they all need to decide on what needs to be done, where, when and how, or we'll end up with "sod posting this there where it belongs, so and so mods that and they won't like it, I'll change the title a little and stick it in that forum where so and so mods, he won't give a shit"

Good questions G. Speaking as the OP, I didn't want to bung a load of stuff in the OP and steer the discussion too much.

Now that other voices have come in I feel a bit more comfortable expanding what I think without worrying that I'm seeming to dictate the specifics of what the poll is about.

The idea of one mod have complete discretion over issue X is a bad one, I agree. But in terms of thread moving and other similar areas that unilateral action is appropriate for, well, you do already do that, don't you.

I was more thinking that Mods A and B could do the 'no contest' moderating on forums 1 and 2, Mods C and D could do the same for forums 3 and 4, and so on. Certain people have expressed an interest in moderating the Adult Websites forum and the Celebrity Endowments forum for example. I'm thinking maybe have two mods per section because, as with a military unit, you want 2 'men' assigned to each job so when there is a 'man' down (I mean busy IRL or something) you still have someone to do the job.

For the bigger deals, the potentially controversial issues, I think the discussion and consensus way you opperate at moment (as far as I am aware) is the only way to do it. It may be flawed but it is the least of several possible evils.

Everything's fine. People just need to realize that if you aren't a paying member, probably nobody in charge is going to give a fuck what you think, harsh but true, although having certain mods in charge of certain things is a good idea

I'm not sure you were around for the last time that was brought up so I'll give you a pass but I'm tempted to spank the next person who suggests being a paid member makes any difference in your value to the site.

This is the Large Penis Support Group.

Large Penis / Support Group

These are the two most important things members offer.

Pics of your large penis are a major draw of the site,being as they are in fact the central theme.

Support - this comes in the form of support for other members or support for the site (female galleries help to draw more male members, etc.)

Yes, money is needed to keep the site afloat but it does not determine the importance of one's voice in discussion.

Peoples egos get hurt way too easily on these boards, and I see people spatting all the time, and am quite surprised, since they both usually seem like mature writers, but I guess some people like to grudge.

I would like to see flags and banning. Flags are warnings, bannings are temp bans.

Full bans only for extreme racism, violent threats, or fakers.

(...and I had hoped to avoid getting into this particular fray...)

The way we operate now, these two desires are in conflict with one another. The more moderators there are, the more that are required to constitute a majority. As it is, it can be sometimes a full day before we get just four moderators to agree on an issue. Raising that number slows us down.

Consider these two extreme cases: In which scenario are decisions made more quickly: a family meeting, or a session of the U.S. House of Representatives? Personally, I'd rather see us more able to intervene early before things get out of hand.

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I just kind of figured that the site would be more inclined to take action if financially contributing members were making suggestions too. I just kind of figured that the site would be more concerned about fiscal matters than social ones to keep the site going, I guess I'm wrong though; I should have worded that better, I didn't intend to imply that paying members are more important than nonpaying members, I just assumed that paying members would have a little more say as to what goes down since without them, the site would run out of money, thats all

who cares about etc etc? Just let it be the wild west.

I second this, I prefer this

to this: